US Army tortures Taliban prisoners most cruelly

The US Army Criminal Investigation Command is investigating torture of Taliban and other jihadist prisoners in the Army's custody, according to sources in the command.

The inhumane techniques are said to fall under the general category of "PowerPointing." As an example, Taliban prisoners were given a full, American Thanksgiving dinner with all the trimmings, then were told they couldn't sleep it off until after they had explained this slide to interrogators:

In a report titled “For the Greater Good,” PowerPointing is defined as “forcing a subject to view a series of PowerPoint slideshow presentations to the point of exhaustion, thereby making it possible to gain answers or information from the subject.”

According to the report, interrogators used the technique to deal with uncooperative or belligerent prisoners.

“PowerPointing is torture, plain and simple,” said lead investigator Hugh Johnson. “Even though we’re dealing with people who are often terrorists plotting against the United States and our allies, we can’t stoop to their level.”

Johnson said Army interrogators collected PowerPoint presentations from their unit’s training officers. Presentation topics included fraternization, sexual harassment, and motorcycle safety.

This is cruel beyond all humanity. Asked of the report, White House spokesman Sean Spicer reiterated President Trump's endorsement of torture, including waterboarding, as legitimate tools in wartime interrogations.

"But the president told me this morning that PowerPointing can never be justified," Spicer said. "Beating them on the bare soles of their feet with rubber stanchions, that's okay. Auto-battery electric shocks? Fine. But PowerPointing? Sickening, just sickening. Must be stopped."

Defense Secretary James Mattis' office released a statement that he was actively considering taking this step in response to the report.

The uncurious minds of news reporters

As an illustration of the typical cluelessness of the American media  - and the further Left they are, the more clueless, I offer this piece on the future of the United States artillery from The National Interest, "The US Army's New Battlefield 'Big Gun' Has a Dangerous Defect."

The issue of the article is the lack of a fully-functional fire-suppression system aboard the "Paladin M109A7 PIM — the latest in America’s line of tracked artillery pieces ," photo above. But the fire-suppression system is not my point here. In the article we read:

In 2002’s Operation Anaconda, the U.S. clashed with hundreds of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters without any large-caliber artillery. Yet with a more entrenched U.S. troop presence in the following years came an increasing reliance on big guns which — in places — fired relentlessly.

Case in point, one artillery battalion in Afghanistan’s mountainous and remote Kunar province lobbed around 25,000 rounds — including mortar rounds — in a year, according to the New York Times.

A 155mm howitzer battalion has 18 howitzers, which we colloquially refer to as "guns" even though they are not guns, they are howitzers.

Now do the math on that artillery unit in Afghanistan and you will immediately see why the story should read, "one artillery battalion in Afghanistan’s mountainous and remote Kunar province lobbed a mere 25,000 rounds  in a year."

Although neither The National Interest nor The New York Times identifies what battalion fired those 25,000 rounds, the odds are near certain that it was a battalion equipped with the M777, 155mm howitzer. Wikipedia has a decent write-up.

As you can see, it is significantly different from the Paladin pictured above, although both guns shoot exactly the same ammunition. The Triple-7 is towed by a truck rather than self-propelled like the M109-series howitzers. The truck also carries crew, ammo and supplies. Towed guns were used in Afghanistan because they were easier to deploy and because in many cases were simpler to move from one place to another over the rugged terrain (mainly because they are so much lighter).

So a battalion of artillery has 18 of these guns. Here is the arithmetic that is so simple anyone but an NYT reporter can do it, including my daughter who was only 2 years old when I retired from the Army and so did not grow up in this culture:

Question: "Is 'fired relentlessly' and apt term for a battalion of 18 guns that fired 25,000 rounds in a year?"

(playing Jeopardy music . . .)

1. 25,000 / 365 days per year = 68.5 rounds per day fired, average.
2. 68.5 rounds per day / 18 guns = (TA DA!) fewer than four rounds per day per gun. 

Does that sound "relentless" to you? The maximum rate of fire of the M777 is 5 rounds per minute. But timing begins at the zero-second mark when the first round is fired. That means that 36 seconds later, that crew is done for the day. The crew spent 0.043 percent of the day "relentlessly" firing their howitzer.

This is by no means any criticism of the artillery crews. Artillery is an "on-demand" combat weapon. It does not make up on its own where or when to shoot. Artillery fire is requested by other arms, mainly infantry and armor, but can also be called for by aviators or assigned by higher commanders. At any rate, what this extremely low use of artillery means is one or more of the following,

• Actual battles with enemy forces were relatively rare,
• When they did occur they were small unit actions and/or at such close ranges that using artillery was impractical
• Rule of Engagement were very restrictive on using a weapon of such destructive power,
• Target location was imprecise,

A little historical scale now. In the Korean War, 

In one 24-hour period during the battle for Bloody Ridge, the 15th FA Bn fired 14,425 rounds. Additionally, from 26 August through 2 September 1951, in support of the 2nd ID during the battle of Heartbreak Ridge, the 15th FA Bn fired 69,956 rounds.

That battalion's guns fired an average of 601 rounds each in that one day, or 150 times as many as that unit cited in the NYT. But consider that 601 battalion rounds per day works out to 33 rounds per gun per hour, or about one every two minutes - and since this battalion used 105mm howitzers, that was much less physically challenging than shooting a 155mm gun since the heavier gun is well, heavier, with its munitions weighing about three times as much as the 105mm.

The trick for the 15th FA gunners in Korea was not shooting every 120 seconds, which is quite easy on that gun (my first unit in my service was in a 105mm unit). The trick is to keep that going for 24 straight hours. I guarantee those gunners were exhausted at the end!

The second example, 69,956 rounds in a six-day period, is a lower rate of fire, 486 battalion rounds per hour, or 27 per gun per hour, a little under one round every two minutes. Again, not physically challenging unless you keep it going for six straight days!

But either case would certainly qualify as "firing relentlessly."

My point in this is that you may now understand why I am very skeptical of what the civilian press reports about military matters, and the more technical the subject is the the more skeptical I get. When I was not blowing things up in the artillery, I served in my alternate specialty of public affairs, including as chief of media relations for XVIII Airborne Corps and Ft Bragg. With not many exceptions, reporters tend to be uncurious people. They generally just write down what someone tells them and that's that.

As my boss used to say, "Reporters don't say what happened. They say what somebody said happened." That's a good thing, actually; you don't want reporters just making stuff up (which a fair number do anyway) but jeepers, who said that this firing in Afghanistan was "relentless?" NYT reporter Wesley Morgan did, that's who, and he thought so because he didn't have the curiosity to run the numbers.

That said, the Interest's brief commentary on the lack of long range on our howitzers is well taken. The concluding line is, "in an artillery war, range is everything." Yet that is only half right. There are two things that are everything in an artillery war: range, accuracy, and responsiveness.

Oh, wait, make that three three things that are everything: range, accuracy, responsiveness and lethality.

Four! In an artillery war, there are four things that are everything: range, accuracy, responsiveness, lethality, and mobility.

In an artillery war there are five things that are everything: range, accuracy, responsiveness, lethality, mobility, and logistics... .

See my point? One thing is not everything in any operation or war. Why does this reporter think so? Well, it makes a good tag line. But also because frankly, he don't know nuthin' about what he's writing about.

BTW, my daughter who knew PDQ that 25K rounds in a year was not "firing relentlessly" is a chemical engineer, so she went to the math right away. But really, this isn't math, it's simple arithmetic and logic, grade school level.

Additional reading: "U.S. Army Field Artillery Relevance on the Modern Battlefield"

Oh, and just for the humor break, my closing grafs about the things that are everything in artillery war uses this famous template.

Why Bergdahl will not be charged with desertion

Is this man guilty of desertion? Can it proven in court?

Members of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's own unit have openly and forecfully called for him to be tried on charges of desertion all the way up to actual treason. Families of the six service members killed looking for him have been very vocal as well.

Regardless of what is the objective truth about Bergdahl's disappearance into spending five years with the Taliban, what can be proven in a court-martial is an altogether different matter. The standards of evidence and the burden of proof are not weaker in military law than in civil law.

Having tried, and failed, to obtain a peacetime conviction of one my own soldiers for desertion when I was a company commander, I have some personal familiarity with the requirements, so here is my take on the matter as relates to Sgt. Bergdahl.

Desertion will likely be difficult to prove in court because of the elements of the offense that the trial counsel (prosecuting attorney) must persuade the panel (jury) beyond reasonable doubt. AWOL, of simply being absent from his place of duty without authorization, is necessarily a lesser-included offense in the charge of desertion. But here is what the UCMJ states is the chargeable offense for desertion. It is Article 85:

(a) Any member of the armed forces who–

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.

The article continues with a paragraph about desertion by commissioned officer, inapplicable here, and with the provision that desertion in time of war may be punished by death.

The above list is called the "elements of proof," Here is minimally what the trial counsel would have prove beyond reasonable doubt, all of the following:

1. That Bergdahl left his unit on his own accord,

2. That he intended to separate himself from the Army permanently,

3. That he left his unit with the intention of avoiding his military duties or avoiding hazards of his service.

Subpara (3) does not apply.

The most difficult hurdle is proving that Bergdahl intended to separate himself from the US Army permanently, meaning for the rest of his life. Here is why. When I was a company commander in the Army I received a soldier to my company who was returned to active duty after being gone for six years. A sheriff in Texas took him into custody when his name turned up on a traffic stop as wanted by the Army. Before he got to me, all that had happened was that he was administratively processed back onto active duty and assigned.

I discussed the case with my first sergeant and then went to the JAG office to talk to a trial counsel, who at first was enthusiastic about trying such a case as a violation of Art. 85. About three days later he called me and said no can do; there was not a ghost of a chance of convicting for desertion.

As it turns out, the length of time the offender is away is wholly irrelevant to proving desertion. Sure, Pvt. Snuffy had been gone six years, and yes, he had not turned himself in but had been apprehended, but the counsel said that documents related to his return to active duty showed that Snuffy had kept all his uniforms, kept his ID card and still even had his travel orders he was using when he decided not to board a connecting flight to go to a new posting.

"There is no way I can prove he intended to absent himself permanently from the Army," he said. "He kept everything Army related that he had with him when he went absent."

Not to worry, though, I put Snuffy in front of a Special Court Martial empowered to adjudge a Bad Conduct Discharge for going AWOL (Article 86). And a few days before trial date, he went AWOL again.

Proving that permanent separation from the Army was Bergdahl's intention when he went away five years ago will be very difficult to prove to legal standard.

The defense dept. never listed Bergdahl as a POW, despite what news reports have said. They listed him as DSWUN - Duty Status and Whereabouts Unknown. But he has at no time been listed as a deserter, either. It would not help the prosecution's case that President Obama publicly called Bergdahl a POW, however. That the Army promoted him to sergeant while he was gone is mostly a mere administrative matter and would not affect the prosecution, although the defense counsel will certainly try to leverage it in his favor.

However, the first hurdle is not building a case for a court, it is building the case for the prior Article 32 investigation, the military's equivalent of a grand jury. The officer conducting the Art. 32 investigation must amass enough evidence, not to convict, but to show why a trial should proceed. That is, he must show that the weight of evidence is that the accused is guilty.

That's the easiest part of building a case. In the military, only commanders actually prefer charges. Military law requires that before signing the charge documents, the commander himself must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the accused (his own soldier) is guilt. This is the same standard of proof as for a court martial.

That means that is this case the Criminal Investigation Command investigators must show to Bergdahl's commander, whomever that turns out to be, how all the elements of proof of desertion have been met. Bergdahl would not be part of this discussion, of course, nor would a defense counsel, since this process is not a trial.

As a battery commander in Germany, I had CID agents lay out a felony UCMJ case before me for one of my soldiers. I found it pocked with holes and refused to sign the charge documents. The acting battalion commander, a major, was unhappy with me and pressured me to sign. Of course, that pressuring crossed a line and I refused even more stoutly. So he signed the charge sheet himself, which he had the authority to do. A few days later the trial counsel looked at the case and threw it out. CID withdrew the investigation and the case was closed. Later I became a principal staff officer at HQ, CID Command and I must say that this was the worst case work I ever saw CID do.

So even if Bergdahl's future company commander refused to charge him, his battalion commander may do so. And if he refuses, the brigade commander may, although it would be very unlikely that he would after two subordinate commanders declined.

Or the brigade commander (or his own commanders on up the line) may direct that he personally will be the commander to decide from the first. They have the authority to declare that, too.

That six soldiers died looking for Bergdahl and many others were wounded is bad, but it is irrelevant to the legal case. There may be some legal issue regarding use in a court martial of what Bergdahl says in his debriefings, since he will not have been advised of his rights under Article 31, UCMJ (basically, the Miranda warning). But my guess is that the intelligence people are far more interested in grilling Bergdahl about the Taliban than protecting statements for use in court.

My prediction: No charge of desertion will be filed. If Bergdahl does face a court, it will be a Special Court Martial for AWOL, for which he could be given imprisonment of up to 12 months and forfeiture of up to two-thirds pay and allowances for the term of sentence, followed at the end with a Bad Conduct Discharge.

End note: the same trial counsel I referred to above told me that he had once obtained a conviction for desertion of a soldier who was in his barracks one evening when he suddenly stood up and yelled, "I can't take this [crap] any more!" Then he turned his wall locker over, emptying it onto the floor, did the same with his footlocker, then threw all his military clothing into a heap on top. Then he took of his dog tags and threw them into a corner. He took his military ID card and cut it in twain and threw it on the floor. Then he donned civilian shorts, shoes and a shirt, stuffed some bills into his pocket and stomped out of the building.

He was detained at a gate leading off post by the gate guard, who summoned the MPs who picked him up. He was charged with desertion, tried and convicted therefor. He was gone for about 20 minutes.

Sgt. Bergdahl's father maybe not what he appears

Robert Bergdahl and Covert Mentoring

He [Robert Bergdahl] has been in contact with at least one retired US military general (likely more) who has been involved in some unique aspects of national security. This general/s is also surrounded by some very quiet professionals who once worked in some of the darkest corners of clandestine operations. Robert Bergdahl was in “contact” and that term is used very loosely here because we do not know how deep that contact actually had become. ...

Could Robert Bergdahl have been covertly mentored? ...

Call me what you will but something tells me Robert Bergdahl, father of Bowe Bergdahl, was mentored by a very unique group of people to act and become something he may, or may not, actually really be.
His actions created a perception among Bowe’s captors. His actions created a perception among the American people. Simply put, his actions created a perception. That perception was incredibly powerful. So powerful, it may have assisted in his own son’s survival. But was his created perception directed by others?

It’s a question in which I hope we never learn the truthful answer.

Interesting thesis.

Meanwhile, families of soldiers slain hunting for the son are starting to make their voices known, loudly.

Bergdahl's fellow soldiers speak

Provided me by a career, senior NCO whom I know personally (not the writer of the comment above).

The WaPo has more.

Bergdahl, 28, is believed to have slipped away from his platoon’s small outpost in Af­ghanistan’s Paktika province on June 30, 2009, after growing disillusioned with the U.S. military’s war effort. He was captured shortly afterward by enemy ­forces and held captive in Pakistan by insurgents affiliated with the Taliban. At the time, an entire U.S. military division and thousands of Afghan soldiers and police officers devoted weeks to searching for him, and some soldiers resented risking their lives for someone they considered a deserter. ...

[A] comment attributed the deaths and woundings of several U.S. soldiers to the search for Bergdahl and asserted that the frequency of enemy ambushes and improvised explosive devices increased after he was gone.

“The Taliban knew that we were looking for him in high numbers and our movements were predictable,” said the comment, written by an anonymous poster who used military jargon and claimed to have been there.

“Because of Bergdahl, more men were out in danger, and more attacks on friendly camps and positions were conducted while we were out looking for him,” it continued. “His actions impacted the region more than anyone wants to admit.”

Update: Even CNN reports on the controversy.

(CNN) -- The sense of pride expressed by officials of the Obama administration at the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is not shared by many of those who served with him -- veterans and soldiers who call him a deserter whose "selfish act" ended up costing the lives of better men.

"I was pissed off then and I am even more so now with everything going on," said former Sgt. Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl's platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009. "Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him."

Update: Well, retired Gen. Jack Keane, former Army vice chief of staff, said on FNC this morning that the Taliban have never actually been designated a terrorist organization and therefore he sees no controversy in negotiating with them for Bergdahl's release. He added that since the president has made it clear that the US military will wholly withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of two more years, the question was whether Bergdahl would wind up the only US soldier remaining there, after five years in captivity already. Since we were going to have to take steps to effect his release sooner or later, Keane said, sooner is better than later.

The issue, Keane said, is not that we made a deal. It is that we made a really bad deal.

Afghanistan in the 1950s

More historical photos here.

Jews in Afghanistan

JERUSALEM -- A trove of ancient manuscripts in Hebrew characters rescued from caves in a Taliban stronghold in northern Afghanistan is providing the first physical evidence of a Jewish community that thrived there a thousand years ago.

Link

The horror

On July 1, 1987, while I was on duty at Sicily Drop Zone, Fort Bragg, NC, a US Air Force C-130 crashed and exploded right in front of me. It was a horrifying day that I wrote about for one Memorial Day, "Courage, an essay for Memorial Day." There is news media video of the crash there since we had invited them to cover the joint training exercise.

So when I followed a link to the dash cam video of a Boeing 747 crash in Afghanistan, some buried feelings came back. I won't post the video here, but here is the YouTube link if you are brave enough.

Seven Americans died in the crash of the cargo 747, operated by a Florida-based company.

You can tell almost immediately that the plane's angle of attack is far too steep. Forward movement slows quickly since the engines cant't drive the plane upward so steeply. With insufficient airflow over the wings, lift disappears.

The 747 rolls to its right until its wings are perpendicular to the ground. It is is falling almost straight down.

Whether the pilot managed to right the plane or whether it did so uncommanded no one knows yet. Sadly, though, the plane has practically zero airspeed except toward the ground.

The horror:

Having attended a plane crash, I assure you that one is enough.

One report I read said that the plane took off for Dubai carrying vehicles and heavy equipment. A retired 747 pilot speculated that the cargo shifted to the rear, throwing the trim and center of gravity off so quickly the pilot could not correct. But speculation is all it is.

The face of battle

The thousand yard stare: A 27-year-old Italian soldier after three days of constant combat in Afghanistan.

'Toughest, Meanest Fighting Force Possible'?

More on why opening infantry, armor and artillery (among other specialties) will mean almost nothing in the long run:

William Gregor, professor of social sciences at the Army's Command and General Staff College, reports that in tests of aerobic capacity, the records show, only 74 of 8,385 Reserve Officers' Training Corps women attained the level of the lowest 16 percent of men. The "fight load" -- the gear an infantryman carries on patrol -- is 35 percent of the average man's body weight but 50 percent of the average Army woman's weight. In his examination of physical fitness test results from the ROTC, dating back to 1992, and 74,000 records of male and female commissioned officers, only 2.9 percent of women were able to attain the men's average pushup ability and time in the two-mile run.

As I wrote before, women know these facts just as well as men and will not flock to become infantrywomen because they are not idiots.

Of course, because the senior leadership of the military is now thoroughly politicized and feminized, even though they are still men, it is always possible that once it's clear that women cannot meet the physical standards demanded by those specialties, well, lower the standards, as as the Joint Chiefs chairman has already said they would.

Well, good luck:



And there's this photo from an embed in Afghanistan:

Hat tip: Reader Mike G. via email

Taliban to pacify Chicago

The Obama administration has concluded its lengthy negotiations (often done through intermediaries) with Afghanistan's Taliban with an agreement that a peacekeeping force of 600 Taliban fighters will be sent to Chicago to lead the way in pacifying the most violent city on America.

A Taliban spokesman told Agence France Presse:

"We have many years of combat experience in violent areas of our country. We have fought rebels, insurgents, villagers, urban militias, rival drug lords and Soviet and American occupying forces. We have fought on foot, horseback, on camels and donkeys, and from trucks. We are very well armed and so we think we are just what Chicago city officials need to bring the level of violence down to what it is in Afghanistan today, which would make life for Chicagoans significantly safer and more peaceful."

HT: Erick Blair

The most harrowing combat footage I have seen

A day in combat in Kunar Province, Afghanistan - US soldier wearing a helmet cam videos himself getting shot by the Taliban.

I got a hit a total of 4 times. My helmet cam died and i made it down the mountain on my own. I was also hit in the side of my helmet and my eye pro was shot off of my face. We were doing overwatch on the village to recon and gather intel. I was point heading down the face of the hill with the LT. when we got hit. the rest of the squad was pinned down by machine gun fire. I didn't start the video until a few mins into the firefight for obvious reasons. I came out into the open to draw fire so my squad could get to safety.

A round struck the tube by my hand of the 203 grenade launcher which knocked it out of my hands. When I picked the rifle back up it was still functional but the grenade launcher tube had a nice sized 7.62 cal bullet hole in it and was rendered useless.

No rounds penetrated his body armor, and he made it home with no permanent injuries. The video soundtrack has a few instances of soldier language, be aware, but who can blame the guy?

My 2008 predictions for this day

Exactly four years ago this day I posted, "Throwing it down," in which I said,

If you think things are bad now, you ain't seen nothing yet. Herewith I throw down on the status quo, 2008-plus-four:

So let's see how I did:
1. The national unemployment rate, as of Oct. 3, was 6.1 percent according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (The next release will be tomorrow.) As of early October 1012, I predict the unemployment rate will be at least two points higher, and probably close to 10 percent.

Near Hit: The October 2012 unemployment rate was 7.9 percent, or the October 2008 rate plus 1.8 percent. This does round to 2 percent, but I had set 8.1 percent as the low rate, so I claim an actual hit here.
But I was close.

2. The Gross Domestic Product will be lower than today, adjusted for inflation. The estimate for 2007's GDP is $13.78 trillion. Look for a GDP decrease of approximately $500-$700 billion.

Near Hit: GDP data are subject to revision, and since 2008, 2007's figure has been revised to $13.2 trillion. According to US Government Debt (a federal web site), here are the data (from the pages customizable charts and tables - pretty cool). The GDP for 2011 was $224 billion lower than 2007. (Interestingly, 2011's figure is $798 billion less than 2007's original figure.)

3. Tax revenues to the federal government, adjusted for inflation, will be lower than today. As the Bush-era tax cuts are allowed to expire and other tax rates are raised, productivity will decline as more capital is taken from the economy.

Exact Hit: Okay, the Bush-era tax cuts have not yet expired but a lot of taxes have been raised. So what has happened to revenue? These figures are not adjusted for inflation:

This year, income taxes and social security taxes are down from four years ago, even without adjusting for inflation/

4. That, in turn, means that the federal deficit will be much greater than today, and we're facing a trillion-dollar deficit next year alone.

Exact Hit: I hardly think I need to discuss this.

5. That in turn will drive the US public debt much higher. The public debt is today almost $10.6 trillion. 

Exact Hit: Near the bottom of the right column of this page is a running tally of the federal debt. As I type, it is almost 16.3 trillion.

6. Iraq will be effectively abandoned (see "Vietnam, South"). The key question is whether American security assistance will survive long enough to adequately finish training the Iraqis to defend themselves. My prediction: No. Al Qaeda in Iraq will be revived and the country will be embroiled in insurgency civil war.

Hit: There are almost no US troops in Iraq, even training Iraqis. Al Qaeda is operating nearly at will in western Iraq and much of the rest of the country. There is a domestic insurgency operating in Baghdad with numerous bombings there are elsewhere all this year.

7. Afghanistan: Obama has claimed that Afghanistan was the only legitimate target of US military response to 9/11. (Okay, he did say he would invade Pakistan, too.) This stance, of course, is proof of Obama's inability to think outside the box, especially on strategic issues. The war we are engaged in is not one against nations, but against ideology.

Obama's failure to understand the essence of the conflict will lead to severe mismanagement of operations in Afghanistan. Pakistan will become more radicalized and violence in Afghanistan will increase.

Hit: The Karzai government is one of the most corrupt on earth. Members of the Afghan security forces murder American and NATO troops. The surge there didn't work. The Taliban are not defeated nor are they even in retreat. Pakistan is becoming more radicalized militarily-Islamically and politically.

8. The Defense department's budget will be gutted of investments in major future-platform systems and high-technology programs. Current operations and maintenance accounts will be inadequate to sustain present force levels and equipment readiness (See "Carter, Jimmy."). The services' end strengths will be reduced. The armed services will face significant recruiting shortfalls as Obama's civilian-service corps are implemented and offer the same benefits as military service, but without the risks.

Hit: See "Sequestration," to take effect at the end of this year unless Congress and the president act to stop it. And they won't. Obama and the Democrats want it to happen. But even Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned strongly against allowing it to go forward. Won't matter.

What will be the result of a visibly weaker American defense establishment in global affairs? Look for an even-more expansive Russia and movements, though not outright invasion, of the Baltic countries and Ukraine. China will flex also, though I shrink from predicting actual military operations by the Chinese. Basically, Russia and China will spend the next four years watching America' economy and apparent national will decline. Moves, if they make them, will come in the spring of 2012, if they assess Obama will not be re-elected, or deep into Obama's second term if he is re-elected.

Hit: An expansive Russia? One, two, three. Russia and the Baltics, here. Ukraine? Doing pretty well, actually. China: more more assertive now than ever. especially with a modernizing navy and air force and cyberspace warfare capabilities.

That's the end of my 2008 predictions. I close with a comment left on the post on Nov. 16 that has turned out to be absolutely accurate:

Anonymous said...

It does not matter Rev. No matter what happens it will be Bush's fault. It will be Bush's fault in 2016. The major terrorist attack that occurs in 2015 will still be Bush's fault. The media will never ever be able to even question that the Messiah's programs might not be working, even when the unemployment rate is in the sevens or eights in two years and the defecit will be over a trillion. The mantra for the 2010 congressionals will be, "Well the Savior's plans just haven't had enough time to overcome the wreckage of Bush! He needs more time and more seats in Congress to accomplish this. I enjoyed your analysis and feel you may be dead on.

NOVEMBER 16, 2008 7:08 AM 

November 6, 2008 was three days after the election that year. I hold off making more four-year projections until we know who wins today - and that might take awhile.

Lara Logan - Video of her 2012 BGA Keynote Speech

I previously linked to a Sun-Times article about CBS News reporter Lara Logan's speech this month to the BGA’s Civic Leadership Committee, written by one of "1,100 influentials from government, politics, media, and the legal and corporate arenas" who attended the speech.

Ms. Logan, you may recall, was sexually assaulted (meaning, gang raped) by a crowd of Muslim men in Cairo's Tahrir Square last year during the glorious blooming of the "Arab Spring."

Now, having recuperated from that ordeal (though it will never be fully in the past for her), she has long returned to reporting, especially on matters related to America's ongoing fight against Islamists. 

The speech below is her assessment of the war. Short summary: we are losing and the Obama administration is lying through its teeth about it.



Partial transcript at and hat tip to American Digest

Because of their sacrifice we go safely to our homes

There is no prose more eloquent than this.

Because he doesn't give a rip, I'm guessing

Foreign Policy: "Why President Obama rarely talks about the war"

And part of the answer is that Obama has thoroughly lost his base on Afghanistan. It is not clear that the left truly believed in the war in 2008, but it is absolutely clear they do not believe in the war now. The left has not yet mobilized against the Afghanistan war the way they mobilized against the Iraq war, and if Obama wins a second term perhaps they won't (if Romney wins, I expect anti-war factions to regain some of their 2006 mojo). The Obama campaign has put all of its 2012 electoral bets on a base mobilization strategy, and so the last thing the president wants to do is remind his base of anything he has done that they don't like.

For all these reasons, and perhaps others, President Obama has largely shirked the traditional commander in chief duty of mobilizing political and public support for the wars he is leading. In contrast with President Bush, who clearly believed in the wars he led and sought every opportunity to try to rally the public to the war cause, President Obama seems far more ambivalent about some of his war duties.

"Ambivalent?" I think that's being highly charitable. I think he simply does not care about the outcome there any more. He doesn't think the United States can win there, in fact he would not know how to define "win" in any event, and so will proceed with vacating the place by 2014. And one outcome will be as good, or at least no worse, than another.

Wife watches husband die in Afghanistan live on Skype

It just doesn't get much worse than this:

DALLAS (AP) — An Army nurse showed no alarm or discomfort before suddenly collapsing during a Skype video chat with his wife, who saw a bullet hole in a closet behind him, his family said Sunday. 

Capt. Bruce Kevin Clark's family released a statement describing what his wife saw in the video feed recording her husband's death in Tarin Kowt, Afghanistan. It's not clear how the bullet hole got in the closet. 

"Clark was suddenly knocked forward," the statement from the soldier's family said. "The closet behind him had a bullet hole in it. The other individuals, including a member of the military, who rushed to the home of CPT Clark's wife also saw the hole and agreed it was a bullet hole. 

The statement says the Skype link remained open for two hours on April 30 as family and friends in the U.S. and Afghanistan tried to get Clark help.

Technology is not an unmixed blessing.

Even Lindsay Lohan would have approved the mission

Gerard Vanderleun posts a proper and well-deserved evisceration of President Obama's "courage" in simply saying yes to the mission to take out Osama bin Laden.

Gutsy? Really? Let's review. Here's the "guts" it takes.

You knock off from a round of golf and make your way -- surrounded by armed guards -- into a building that sits at the center of a concentric series of defensive rings involving armor, artillery, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines of the United States of America. Did I mention that your house, among many other things known and unknown, has a Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System installed on the roof? ...

... You take your seat in the corner like Little Jack Horner, and sort of hunch over while an admiral of the US Navy turns on a large screen TV and you watch whatever happens to come over the net.

When the TV show put on for you is over you knock off for the rest of the day and go upstairs for some refreshments. Then it's time to make an announcement and to begin to preen around the world. Your acolytes will abase themselves without shame. You will brag without shame.

On the far side of the world, Seal Team Six -- the men that got aboard the helicopters, rode them into a hostile nation at night, crashed one, ran into a building and shot the world's most wanted man dead and then got out -- will be, I trust, relaxing with a beer or two. The guy who pulled the trigger on the Islamic animal will have Seal bragging rights for the rest of his life. But guess what? He'll probably never use them.

Read the comments, like these two:

As one of my commentors pointed out today: Lindsay Lohan would have given the approval to kill Bin Laden.

And,

You are correct, sir, that the SEAL that took down bin Laden is not going to talk about it. Still, I'll probably hear from 30 or so guys over the rest of my life, down at the VFW telling about how they were with the SEAL team or were the shooter himself. Of course, that's how I know they'll be lying. The get a masquerade going about how they served and they can't help themselves but to embellish it until anyone with a DD214 can tell they never served a day in their lives. I never met a fake who was a Pvt, stateside on KP duty his whole enlistment. Every single one was an officer in some special unit that got orders directly from the POTUS himself, and now can't talk about the terrible stuff he did. Or course, if you buy him a beer and give him a few smokes, he might just consider you trustworthy enough to let loose a little talk about the time he killed General Ping at Ru Tai with a bootlace...

The never understand that CDR Dick Marcinko doesn't get a bigger welcome from us vets than SN Slipknot because it's not what you did, it's that you served and did your best, even if that was scrubbing the head every day for 4 years.

Too high to climb in Afghanistan?

OTB founder James Joyner writes in The National Interest that there are, "Insurmountable Obstacles in Afghanistan." He starts by noting a speech made to the Atlantic Council last week by Major General John Toolan,"just returned from a year commanding NATO forces in southwestern Afghanistan."

At the same time, however, Toolan was quite blunt in his assessment of how fragile the situation is: "If we want to lose everything we've gained, then if we allow corruption to take root, it'll come crashing in."

Nor is this a distant threat. While he considers the well-publicized incidents of Afghan National Army soldiers killing NATO troops aberrations, he acknowledged that the police forces are far from competent or trustworthy. Currently, Toolan repeatedly noted, they are incapable of conducting even basic criminal investigations on their own. Further, the "police are still working through a history of corruption."

Afghanistan's system does not function despite corruption. Corruption is the system. Except by their own lights, they don't think its corruption. It's just how business gets done and how it always has been for centuries.

"Stupid terrorist Award" goes to . . .

This guy (click image for larger size):

Hmm . . . if the GSA had thought to hand out "Stupid Terrorists" awards, they could have held another gazillion-dollar banquet retreat in Las Vegas!